At times in Christian thought, the priorities of pure doctrine and passionate mission have been perceived as opposites on a spectrum where emphasis on one results in neglect of the other, but without one, the other is deficient and doomed to crumble. Mission without doctrine is like a body without a skeleton, but apart from mission, doctrine is like dry bones in a museum. A Lutheran Reformission maintains a dual emphasis, resulting in doctrinal missions as well as missional doctrine.

Monday, August 31, 2015

For this week's newspapers, I answered the final follow-up in a series of 3 about what makes and does not make a person sinful by answering how a Christian chooses about what to do when the action is neither commanded nor forbidden by genuine divine laws:

Q: If it is not the things we
consume or touch, or even our actions, that determine our status before God,
then how do Christians choose a course of action in decisions which involve
things beyond the Ten Commandments?

When a person understands the fact
that their status with God the Father is determined by Jesus and His perfect
life and crucified death rather than their own performance, it can be a
difficult adjustment because it seems at first to leave a vacuum in the area of
ethics and morality.

However, the Christian still honors
God’s law, and even desires to keep it, but as a result of God’s goodness to
them rather than as a condition of salvation.
When it regards which actions are a sin, this is guided by the Ten
Commandments, as understood in the light of all of Scripture, but there are
many choices where none of the options would seem to violate one of these
commandments, but a choice still remains to be made.

Sometimes, there are clear New
Testament instructions on a matter, usually dealing with matters of the way the
Church carries out its work. One of the
clearest examples of this is Paul’s instructions to Timothy and Titus about the
qualifications for pastors and elders.

In another instance, there was a
question about whether the gentile Christians should eat certain meats or do
other things that were forbidden by the Old Testament ceremonial law. The result was that the apostles held a
council at Jerusalem and determined that these laws did not apply to Gentiles
when they became Christians, but that they should observe a few customs out of
respect for their Jewish Christian neighbors.

Paul Himself had to make a choice
about the law of circumcision when he began to enlist the help of non-Jewish men
as associates in the mission. On one
occasion, he decided that Timothy should be circumcised like the Jews were
according to their law, but on another, he refused to allow Barnabas to be
circumcised.

This is because it was neither commanded nor forbidden that gentiles to be
circumcised like Jewish people were before Jesus came, so Paul chose what best
taught the people what they needed to understand. This is what he means when he talks about
“becoming all things to all men” in 1 Corinthians 9.

Because Timothy would be serving in a
setting where he would be among Jews, Paul allowed for him to be circumcised so
that it would not be an obstacle to his congregation hearing and believing the
Gospel. On the other hand, Barnabas
would be serving in a time and place where Judaizers were seeking to force the
Old Testament law upon Christians, so Paul refused to allow his circumcision in
order to demonstrate the Christians’ freedom from Old Testament ceremonial
laws.

In both cases, Paul made the decision
that most clearly provided a path for people to hear and believe the Gospel
without the corruption of false teaching—making concessions for the sake of
those who might be weak, but standing firmly against those whose pride
undermined the Gospel.

Christians are called to similar
commitments when faced with present customs and behaviors that are matters of
controversy, but don’t relate to the sins specified in the Ten
Commandments. This would include things
like alcohol or tobacco use, many expressions of language, and displays of
wealth, among many others. The
Christian’s goal is to make such choices in the way that avoids being an
obstacle for the Gospel or which tears down obstacles placed by others.

So, when we make choices, we try to
do what would be least confrontational to our neighbors who are offended by
certain things because they are misinformed or fearful, but when confronted
with opponents who seek to enforce their choices upon us out of pride, then we
are called to stand against them so that our neighbors’ freedom and confidence
in the Gospel would not be assaulted.

Questions may be submitted by email to revjpeterson@stjohnsburt.org or sent
to P.O. Box 195; Burt, IA 50522.

Monday, August 17, 2015

For this week's newspapers, I answered a follow-up question to last week's answer about whether physical things can be inherently sinful:

Q: If it is not certain substances
or objects which are the source of sinfulness, then what about alcohol, drugs,
tobacco, gambling, and other things which play a role in so many problems in
society? Does the same method apply to
examining the morality of actions?

This question has made frequent
appearance in English-speaking Christianity, particularly here in the United
States. Since so many societal ills
involve abuse of alcohol, drugs, or other substances, people sometimes conclude
that if you could rid society of the substance, you could eliminate the
problem.

Likewise, with actions, they often
conclude that since an action has caused problems for some people in some
circumstances, that the action itself must be evil—or at least in decrying the
abuse of the action, they give the appearance that the action itself is a
sin.

However, such an approach is not in
step with the worldview of Scripture or of the historic way the Church has
approached such question. Instead, honest
analysis reveals that the problem is not with objects, or in some cases actions,
but rather with the impure desires and motivations which drive people to misuse
them. The problem is not in the use or possession of
the things, or the performance of many actions, but in their abuse.

So, for example, the Old Testament
frequently used wine as an illustration of joy and celebration and made other
positive references to alcohol consumption, and St. Paul even instructed Timothy
to use wine to aid with digestion.
Meanwhile, in the very same books of the Bible, the authors warned
against drunkenness—the misuse of alcohol.

Similarly, there are many
prescription medications that are beneficial when used as prescribed, but
harmful if misused. Even in the case of
illicit drugs, it is not as if sin was written into the chemical compound, but
because the person is harming their own body by their use (5th
Commandment), disobeying lawful authority (4th commandment), and
treating God’s blessing of the body in a wasteful manner (7th
Commandment).

Sexual intimacy provides an excellent
example where this idea can be applied to an action. When it occurs between a husband and a wife
in the context of marriage, it is a blessed thing which results in numerous
benefits to the relationship of the couple, the foremost of which is the
potential of conceiving a child.

In contrast, when it is used in any
other context, it results in spiritual harm, as well as increased risk of
several kinds of physical and emotional consequences. Similar to the way it is with things above,
it is not the action which is sin, but the wrong use of the action.

Consider also the popular saying that
“Money is the root of all evil.” This
thought by many to be a saying from the Bible, but in reality it is a
misquotation of a Biblical statement, which really says, “The love of money is
the root of all evil.” The misquoted
statement attributes the sin to the object of money, but the genuine statement
rightly blames its wrong use, by loving it, as the real problem.

The Prohibition era in our country
provides an excellent case study in this principle. The Temperance movement advanced the idea
that ridding the country of alcohol would result in a utopian society that was
free of the problems people felt were most pressing at the time. In reality, people obtained alcohol in other
ways, discovered other substances to abuse in its place, and violent organized
crime began to flourish as a direct result of what was intended to be a
beneficial reform.

Ultimately, it is this way with all
sins. Scholars of the commandments have
rightly observed that every other commandment really points back to the First, “You
shall have no other gods.” Whenever a
person misuses an object or an action, they are treating it as a god—no different
than someone who bows down before a carved idol.

The 2nd through 8th
Commandments describe particular ways in which this occurs, and the final
commandments about coveting bring the idea full circle by revealing that even
the desire to have or do those things which one does not have the right to have
or do is itself a sin even though the thing has not been obtained or the action
accomplished.

Thursday, August 6, 2015

My article from this week's newspapers answers a question about whether there are certain things that can make a Christian unrighteous by having contact with them:

Q: Are there certain things that
would be sinful for Christians to consume, hear, see, or come into contact with
like there were in the Old Testament? If
so, what would those be?

It seems that human understand
instinctively that something has gone wrong in this world and that living here comes
with a certain degree of spiritual danger.
In an effort to remedy this, prohibitions on contact with certain items
in the physical world are a common feature among religions throughout the
world.

A common example is eating the meat
of certain animals, or meat at all. For
others, they see certain places as forbidden or certain words that should never
be uttered. They may even propose that
those who hear forbidden words or see others committing a forbidden act or come
too close to a forbidden thing are made unholy or unclean by their
contact.

The Old Testament laws given to
Israel bear a resemblance to the description above, but those who read them
closely will discover that there is a distinct difference in the way that they
approach this compared to the religions of the world.

To begin with, Genesis describes several centuries where the Law of Moses is
not in force, yet people like Noah, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac, Jacob and his
twelve sons are not regarded as any less accepted because they do not have it
or follow it. This seems to indicate
that these laws are for a certain time, place and purpose rather than being
universal decrees.

In addition, the objects and actions
they forbid are not treated as defective in themselves, but they are to be
avoided to teach a greater truth about sin.
So the people avoid touching lepers or certain animals and they follow
certain grooming rituals as a way of showing them that sin corrupts them and
must be cleansed.

The ultimate goal of all of this was
a promise given as early as the third chapter of Genesis that a particular
descendent of Eve would one day arise to provide the permanent remedy for
sin.

When Jesus arrives, he disregards all
of the extra regulations the Pharisees had made regarding what to avoid and how
to wash if one might have contacted something or someone who was unclean. He tells them, “There is nothing outside a
person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a
person are what defile him… Whatever goes into a person from outside cannot
defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?”

We also never see him go to the
priests or the temple to be cleansed after he touches and heals a leper or
someone with an unclean discharge or a demon.
This would have been required not only by the Pharisees but also the Law
of Moses. However, Jesus could not be
made unclean, therefor had no need for cleansing. Instead, his inherent cleanness flowed out to
the person to heal them rather than their uncleanness being transferred to
him.

When the Apostle Paul was confronted
with people who thought that Christians ought to avoid consuming or coming into
contact with certain things, he responds by writing, “Therefore let no one pass
judgment on you in questions of food and drink... “Do not handle, Do not taste,
Do not touch” …These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made
religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in
stopping the indulgence of the flesh.”

Jesus and Paul both demonstrate that
what causes our problem with God is not what comes into us from outside but
what comes out of our own hearts and desires.
For Christians, it is not a thing itself that is bad, such as food,
drink, sexual intimacy, or any other earthly element, but rather when it is
used in a way that is inconsistent with the Creator’s will. The sin comes not from the earthly thing, but
from our sinful desire to misuse it against our neighbors, against our own
physical and spiritual well-being, and against the Lord who gave it.

Lutheranism is more than a cultural identity or a denominational label. In fact, this cultural and institutional baggage may be the primary obstacle in Lutheranism’s path.

To be a Lutheran is not dependent on a code of behavior or a set of common customs. Instead, to be a Lutheran is to receive Jesus in His Word, Body, and Blood for the forgiveness of sins in the Divine Service; and to be bearers of this pure Truth to a broken world corrupted with sin, death, and every lie of the devil and man’s own sinful heart.

While the false and misleading ideas of human religious invention are appealing to sin-blinded minds, they fail when exposed to the realities of life. It is tragic when souls are led to confusion and despair because of the false religious ideas with which they are surrounded. The Biblical doctrine taught by the Apostles and restored at the Reformation holds answers which are relevant regardless of time or place and offers assurance of forgiven sins and eternal life who all who believe its message.

I am a husband, a father, the pastor of St. John’s Lutheran Church (LCMS) in Burt, IA, and track chaplain at Algona Raceway.